Eastern understanding of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity

[johnpfmcguire]

Fascinating speculations as ever, my good mardukm. For myself, I prefer the facts, but your way’s good too. Do not hesitate to slap on me whatever label you will - I knew what I was getting into when I consecrated myself to the Truth - but I’ll just stick to the Nicaene Creed when saying the Nicaene Creed.

 

[chaldobyzantine]

[13] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
[14] He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Theres nothing in there about procession just as he says a few verses later. Or then are we declaring the Lord someone who often contradicts himself?

The Nicene Creed was accepted by the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, when we were all united. Now how is it that the Holy Fathers of the Church just ignored the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son as well as the Father? Did they not have access to the bible? Were they not in an Ecumenical Synod?

 

[johnpfmcguire]

*Ba-zing! *(Could not resist.)

 

[Ghosty]

Theres nothing in there about procession just as he says a few verses later. Or then are we declaring the Lord someone who often contradicts himself?

The Nicene Creed was accepted by the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, when we were all united. Now how is it that the Holy Fathers of the Church just ignored the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son as well as the Father? Did they not have access to the bible? Were they not in an Ecumenical Synod?

The Nicene Creed doesn’t say “from the Father, alone”, though, and neither does Scripture. Let’s see what some Eastern Church Fathers had to say about the procession of the Holy Spirit, some relying on the Scripture I cited.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, in “Not Three Gods”:

If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer—that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another—by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.

Didymous the Blind, in “The Holy Spirit”:

So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which He subsists. For neither hads the Son anything else except those things given Him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given Him by the Son.

St. Epiphanius of Salamis, from “The Man Well Anchored”:

The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son.

St. Athanasius, in Discourse III Against the Arians:

Not then as the Son in the Father, so also we become in the Father; for the Son does not merely partake the Spirit, that therefore He too may be in the Father; nor does He receive the Spirit, but rather He supplies It Himself to all; and the Spirit does not unite the Word to the Father , but rather the Spirit receives from the Word.

…

Rather, are not the Arians confuted on every side? And especially by John, that the Son is in the Father in one way, and we become in Him in another, and that neither we shall ever be as He, nor is the Word as we; except they shall dare, as commonly, so now to say, that the Son also by participation of the Spirit and by improvement of conduct came to be Himself also in the Father. But here again is an excess of irreligion, even in admitting the thought. For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit has, He has from the Word.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, “Treasury of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity”:

Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually proceeds from the Father and the Son, it is abundantly clear that He is of the Divine Essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it.

St. John of Damascus, “On the Trinity”:

Think of the Father as a spring of life begetting the Son like a river and the Holy Ghost like a sea, for the spring and the river and sea are all one nature.

Think of the Father as a root, and of the Son as a branch, and the Spirit as a fruit, for the substance in these three is one.

The Father is a sun with the Son as rays and the Holy Ghost as heat.

These are only Eastern Fathers; if I were to add Western Fathers the list would at least double in size.

The Creed did not contain the filioque, true, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t understood as part of the Faith. If we’re discussing whether or not the filioque is a proper addition to the Creed, that’s one thing, but if we’re talking about whether or not it’s orthodox, that’s another.

Peace and God bless!

 

[johnpfmcguire]

And still I wish to say the Nicaean Creed when I say the Nicaean Creed. I’m not asking for the moon here, just authentic doctrine without postconciliar “leaven.” If that makes me a “taditionalist,” you know what, labels to those who dole out labels! But, yes, to those who have ears, I am questioning the fittingness of the words, not the orthodoxy of their intent. As I’ve said and your quotes confirm it should read, if anything, per Filium rather than Filioque. It is more clear-headed and more consistent with Divine Revelation. As I’ve said before it is beyond me why not everyone craves this.

 

[dvdjs]

Yet they sure got along just fine without it for 1,000 years in Rome, and it was the germanic Catholics that first added it to begin with…

Just to be clear, “Rome” here means the city of Rome, not the Western church - otherwise you are off by ~500 years. Second, I had thought that the addition was by first seen int eh Nicene Creed, from Spanish Catholics catechizing against germanic Arians.

 

[dvdjs]

To me the bible is clear and simple, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, only.

Sounds eerily like Luther who thought that the bible clearly said that we are justified by faith alone.

 

[dvdjs]

… it should read, if anything, per Filium rather than Filioque. It is more clear-headed and more consistent with Divine Revelation. As I’ve said before it is beyond me why not everyone craves this.

Perhaps because it is a form that was tainted by heretics. Read Dudley on the “History of the First Council of Nice”.

The Catholics had been accustomed, according to ancient tradition and common usage to sing " Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto", whereas the Arians in baptizing used the following form " Gloria Patri per Filium in Spiritu Sancto"

 

[Ghosty]

And still I wish to say the Nicaean Creed when I say the Nicaean Creed. I’m not asking for the moon here, just authentic doctrine without postconciliar “leaven.” If that makes me a “taditionalist,” you know what, labels to those who dole out labels! But, yes, to those who have ears, I am questioning the fittingness of the words, not the orthodoxy of their intent. As I’ve said and your quotes confirm it should read, if anything, per Filium rather than Filioque. It is more clear-headed and more consistent with Divine Revelation. As I’ve said before it is beyond me why not everyone craves this.

If that’s the case then you don’t want to say the Creed that the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics say. We say the Constantinopolitan Creed, which has “proceeds from the Father”. The Nicene Creed doesn’t mention any procession of the Holy Spirit.

Peace and God bless!

 

[johnpfmcguire]

Yeah, I’m fairly certain that’s all wrong. And that’s just based on Mass: they sure as heck don’t call it the “Constantinopolitan Creed.” But that “the Nicene [sic] Creed doesn’t mention any procession of the Holy Spirit” is exactly my whole point. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only true thing up there is plagiarized from me.

 

[Ghosty]

Yeah, I’m fairly certain that’s all wrong. And that’s just based on Mass: they sure as heck don’t call it the “Constantinopolitan Creed.”

Maybe you should read up on history and the theology in question then, before you continue to bad-mouth people in this thread.

Peace and God bless!

 

[johnpfmcguire]

Just take some time and read what I’ve said.

 

[Ghosty]

Just take some time and read what I’ve said.

I did, and if you think the Nicene Creed says anything about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, let alone per filium, then you don’t know the Nicene Creed.

 

[johnpfmcguire]

Poor child, I neither thought nor said any such thing. What I said was, rather than say “Filioque” it should read “per Filium.” Is that clear enough now, dear one?

 

[chaldobyzantine]

Let’s keep this debate civil and in a peaceful tone. I know that this is an issue that is very important, to me as well, but there should not be any insults or sarcastic remarks directed at each other.

God Bless.

 

[johnpfmcguire]

Chaldobyzantine is right. And to that end let’s carefully read what each other writes. God love you all. (If anyone’s being sarcastic, by the way, I’m sure it isn’t me. I just do my best to meet people where they’re at.)

 

[Alexander_Roman]

What Ghosty says is true - however, I’ve yet to see any other title for the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed than simply “Nicene.”

This could be because the next Council just further augmented the Nicene Creed.

Alex

 

[johnpfmcguire]

Did someone say Fraud? Because I could have sworn the so-called “Nicaean Creed” which isn’t really from the Nicaea Council had Fraud written all over it.

 

[Ghosty]

Did someone say Fraud? Because I could have sworn the so-called “Nicaean Creed” which isn’t really from the Nicaea Council had Fraud written all over it.

Again, read the actual Creed from Nicaea and you’ll see that the Creed you are defending (the one said at Mass, even without the filioque) is “post-conciliar”. The authentic, original Nicene Creed ends with “and in the Holy Spirit”. It doesn’t mention procession at all.

Peace and God bless!

 

[johnpfmcguire]

Then that’s where we ought to start: ground that is common among all the Church’s main arteries. Am I totally alone in seeing it this way? (Not that that would matter.)